Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 99-4530
COUNSEL
John OLeary, OLEARY ASSOCIATES, INC., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Alfred
W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Nigel Geohagen appeals from a seventy-eight month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute and to distribute powder and crack cocaine, 21
U.S.C.A 846 (West 1999). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Geohagen first challenges the district courts jurisdiction under
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Specifically, Geohagen claims that the Governments failure to allege the
drug quantity in his indictment deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held in Apprendi that "any fact that increases
the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum
must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63. In United States v. Angle, 230 F.3d
113 (4th Cir. 2000) (96-4662), petitions for rehearing filed (Oct. 26,
2000), we concluded that if a defendant is sentenced to a term within
the statutory maximum, the conviction and sentence do not violate
Apprendi, notwithstanding the failure to allege a drug quantity in the
indictment. Geohagens sentence falls well within the maximum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C.A. 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999). Accordingly, we find no Apprendi violation.
Geohagen next claims that the district court improperly assessed a
four-level increase in his base offense level for his role as an organizer or leader in the conspiracy pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3B1.1(a) (1998). Counsel did not object to this
enhancement, so we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b);
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); United States v.
Hastings, 134 F.3d 235, 239-40 (4th Cir. 1998). To show plain error,
the defendant must establish that there was an error, the error was
plain, the error affected the defendants substantial rights, and the
error affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732; Hastings, 134 F.3d at 239-40.